Some SSDs have problems with windows 9x, similar in a way to some CF cards not working in 286. No idea what the cause is.
I wouldnt touch Windows ME in the first place 😀 the problem might be ME and not SSD.

I just had this error and it fried my ME install. I replaced all the windows files with backups and it works again

It defaults back after restart though so you have to set it each time I believe

49GB is not even a valid partition size for FAT32, if that Win95 disk you're using supports FAT32 at all.
So first of all start with a proper ME disk (or disc), fdisk and create partitions of up to 32GB, format them and then try installation again.

Got a 120GB as I know that is massive for the 90s anyway.

I am able to FDISK and format C: from a Windows 95 startup CD.

Use modern tools to format modern drives. Win95 FDISK/FORMAT isn't going to work. WinME might be able to format FAT32 up to 137GB (LBA28) with ME's DOS FDISK/FORMAT, but I never tried this myself as back in the day I never had a drive larger than 20GB. Not even WinXP can format greater than 32GB for FAT32. You'll need a WinME's boot disk or a modern OS.

Thank you all. WinME was not the first choice for this system. I initially tried 95/98 but just could not get anything working with drivers, it was really annoying. ME also has the added convenience of flash drive support so I can easily move files around to it like drivers, games, etc. ME runs great on an IDE drive I have for this PC I installed it on 2 years ago. I just figured for $15 I could get an SSD and it would probably be more reliable and just do a new fresh install. I will try the WinME disk.

m3stang wrote on 2022-09-01, 19:03:

Thank you all. WinME was not the first choice for this system. I initially tried 95/98 but just could not get anything working with drivers, it was really annoying. ME also has the added convenience of flash drive support so I can easily move files around to it like drivers, games, etc. ME runs great on an IDE drive I have for this PC I installed it on 2 years ago. I just figured for $15 I could get an SSD and it would probably be more reliable and just do a new fresh install. I will try the WinME disk.

The format tool for 9X doesn't calculate drive capacity output correctly. Even though the size is not reported correctly, when the OS is running, you'll see it is the full size of the partition formatted.
https://msfn.org/board/topic/85573-corrected- … -format/page/2/

There's nothing wrong with Windows ME unless you plan to run very old DOS games or programs and possibly old Windows 3D games running earlier DirectX version like 3-5 (though most will be fine). Windows 98SE, however, provides the most well-rounded experience.

SSD and NVMe, even if reporting correctly when connected to IDE or SATA often end up with the errors you are experiencing unless certain controllers are used, from my experience, particularly with those integrated into the motherboard. A quality SATA controller like those from Promise usually work trouble-free. The problem is they are expensive. You might be better off using CompactFlash (even with its quirks) or maybe even an SD card. If you wanted a Promise S150 TX2: here are the details:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/parts/Controller … oller-Card-1430

As for Flash drives, you can load them for both Windows 95 and 98. ME has them built-in, as you have found. Here are drivers (I actually use a different set from SanDisk, but the one's below work fine):
https://www.philscomputerlab.com/windows-98-u … age-driver.html

For the speed issue you have experienced with Windows 95, it is with processors over 350MHz. You need to patch the installation BEFORE it completes for best results. It's possible afterward, but becomes less likely you'll be able to boot to desktop the faster the CPU. Here is the procedure:
https://msfn.org/board/topic/141402-windows-9 … u-limit-broken/

Startech has three SATA to IDE adapter models. Two use Sunplus or JMicron chipsets and should be avoided. The other uses the Marvell and is reliable (at least with older revisions of the chip that have the logo on it).

JMicron should also be avoided... There are several variations of JMicron... JMB330, JMD330, JMH330 - none of them are any good. I had partial success getting DMA working on the JMH330, and performance was almost on-par with the Marvell, but it wasn't reliable in that it caused boot interruptions when going to Windows on my SSD.

mockingbird wrote on 2022-09-01, 22:34:

Startech has three SATA to IDE adapter models. Two use Sunplus or JMicron chipsets and should be avoided. The other uses the Marvell and is reliable (at least with older revisions of the chip that have the logo on it).

JMicron should also be avoided... There are several variations of JMicron... JMB330, JMD330, JMH330 - none of them are any good. I had partial success getting DMA working on the JMH330, and performance was almost on-par with the Marvell, but it wasn't reliable in that it caused boot interruptions when going to Windows on my SSD.

Which Marvel chip is it for reference? The one on the Asus A7N8X-E I own has Marvell and I suffered the same errors as the original poster. Ditto issues with the integrated SATA functions of the last nForce 2 used on the Abit NF7-S2.

mockingbird wrote on 2022-09-01, 22:34:

Startech has three SATA to IDE adapter models. Two use Sunplus or JMicron chipsets and should be avoided. The other uses the Marvell and is reliable (at least with older revisions of the chip that have the logo on it).

JMicron should also be avoided... There are several variations of JMicron... JMB330, JMD330, JMH330 - none of them are any good. I had partial success getting DMA working on the JMH330, and performance was almost on-par with the Marvell, but it wasn't reliable in that it caused boot interruptions when going to Windows on my SSD.

The Marvell ones are the most compatible. The JMicron ones work well with DMA on PIIX4E and ICH2, for example, but not on ICH4 or 686B .

Regarding the newer Marvell revs, do you mean the newer ones without the logo have known issues ? If so, could you elaborate ?

darry wrote on 2022-09-01, 23:30:

Regarding the newer Marvell revs, do you mean the newer ones without the logo have known issues ? If so, could you elaborate ?

I had issues with an Ableconn mSATA to IDE adapter I purchased from Amazon. Lately, Ableconn and Startech are using a variant of the chip with a 2020+ datecode that have a different print design on it (and lack the logo)... I have a source for good 2009 Marvell chips, and I may transplant one on to the Ableconn to see if it helps. I recently did a transplant of a faulty chip on a Startech controller with a burnt chip successfully with one of them. I should have bought two at the time though. Now I gotta order one again from China.

Meatball wrote on 2022-09-01, 20:07:

The format tool for 9X doesn't calculate drive capacity output correctly. Even though the size is not reported correctly, when […]
Show full quote

m3stang wrote on 2022-09-01, 19:03:

Thank you all. WinME was not the first choice for this system. I initially tried 95/98 but just could not get anything working with drivers, it was really annoying. ME also has the added convenience of flash drive support so I can easily move files around to it like drivers, games, etc. ME runs great on an IDE drive I have for this PC I installed it on 2 years ago. I just figured for $15 I could get an SSD and it would probably be more reliable and just do a new fresh install. I will try the WinME disk.

The format tool for 9X doesn't calculate drive capacity output correctly. Even though the size is not reported correctly, when the OS is running, you'll see it is the full size of the partition formatted.
https://msfn.org/board/topic/85573-corrected- … -format/page/2/

There's nothing wrong with Windows ME unless you plan to run very old DOS games or programs and possibly old Windows 3D games running earlier DirectX version like 3-5 (though most will be fine). Windows 98SE, however, provides the most well-rounded experience.

SSD and NVMe, even if reporting correctly when connected to IDE or SATA often end up with the errors you are experiencing unless certain controllers are used, from my experience, particularly with those integrated into the motherboard. A quality SATA controller like those from Promise usually work trouble-free. The problem is they are expensive. You might be better off using CompactFlash (even with its quirks) or maybe even an SD card. If you wanted a Promise S150 TX2: here are the details:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/parts/Controller … oller-Card-1430

As for Flash drives, you can load them for both Windows 95 and 98. ME has them built-in, as you have found. Here are drivers (I actually use a different set from SanDisk, but the one's below work fine):
https://www.philscomputerlab.com/windows-98-u … age-driver.html

For the speed issue you have experienced with Windows 95, it is with processors over 350MHz. You need to patch the installation BEFORE it completes for best results. It's possible afterward, but becomes less likely you'll be able to boot to desktop the faster the CPU. Here is the procedure:
https://msfn.org/board/topic/141402-windows-9 … u-limit-broken/

Wow super helpful info. I really appreciate the time you took to write this all down!

m3stang wrote on 2022-09-01, 14:13:

768 MB RAM

Did you install PATCHMEM?

With more than 512MB RAM 9x/ME can get unstable and corrupt data.